About Me

Gerry Dantone is the founder and former coordinator for the Center for Inquiry - Long Island Community and founder & President of Long Island Secular Humanists. He edited the CFI-LI INQUIRER for 11 years and has contributed to Free Inquiry magazine. He has appeared on CNN, FoxNews and local TV and radio. In addition, Gerry Dantone is a singer-songwriter-music producer for his band UniversalDice.com. You may visit their websites, see below.

Friday, December 22, 2017

What is the real cost of this ts bill for each American? What will they get for their temporary tax reduction, if indeed they get them?

The NY Times tax bill calculator below does not ask for your
real estate taxes or state of residence which could make a significant
difference,so results will vary. New Yorkers would usually do worse because of state and local taxes not being fully deductible in some cases.

So with the tax calculator you can get a rough idea of how you will do. But how much more of the National Debt will each person owe?

The average American's portion of the
increased debt from this bill individually is about $4300, and it's $8600 for a
couple and $17,200 as the share of the increased debt for a family of 4. (The Increased Debt = $1,500,000,000,000 divided by 350,000,000 Americans to get $4300 each person.) This is
your share of the debt individually you've incurred for the extra $25 a week you will receive from the tax cut if
you are married with 2 kids and make between $25,000 and $75,000 per year. The
exact details on your status will make a difference.

But this does not count the decrease in government services
that you would have had access to that you will not have access to in the future that is sure to follow. If they cut Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid by $1,000,000,000,000 your total new debt plus
LOSS OF FUTURE SERVICES would be about $7,100 individually or $28,400 for a family of
4.

Yet even this total does not count the increase in premiums
from higher health care insurance costs which this tax bill would cause. If
that is also $1,000,000,000,000 you are now in the hole for $10,000,000 or
$40,000 for a family of 4! This is what you'd get for the extra $25/week based on my assumptions.

But here is the final straw; if you are priced out of the
health insurance market due to premiums being too high and you get ill - your
loss can be almost any amount - leading to bankruptcy. And if Obamacare is gutted
to the point where pre-existing conditions are cause to be denied coverage, you
could be dead.

Now of course the above math goes for the wealthy as well - but what
is $10,000 in total to a rich person or $40,000 to a rich family when they may see
$100,000 or much more in lower taxes every year, not to mention the decrease in the Estate Taxes for their heirs or the PERMANENT tax cuts for corporations owned primarily by the wealthy? And that is why this tax cut
is for the wealthy.

There are two separate aspects to the tribalism now engulfing the U.S. One tribalism involves a moral chasm and the other is a dogmatic economic chasm.

The dogmatic economic chasm is the difference in economic and political governance between the extreme right and moderate left/center; an example is the extreme right wing idea that a tax cut for the wealthy is good for the country vs. the moderate left/center idea that income inequality is really at the root of slowing economic growth in the U.S. It is my opinion that the extreme right wing position is delusional and that the problem of income inequality is objectively obvious. Please note that I have not mentioned policies that could address this problem but instead only identified what I think the underlying problem.

The second aspect of U.S. tribalism in a sense is more important in my opinion; people of good will could be in error on economic policy - it is not an exact science. A person of good will can be excused for getting the economics wrong. The second, more important aspect is a question of moral values. Simply put, the extreme right has a thread of racism/intolerance/sexism/greed running through it. Those "right wingers" not in that camp reject these "values" can include otherwise economic dogmatic right wingers, such as Jeff Flake or John McCain or George Will, etc. They can be "forgiven" for their "errors" and be bargained with, one could hope. They are not loathsome. I would say they are simply wrong in their economic opinions.

However, here are the moral issues that a large segment of the extreme right and the President's supporters accept, embrace and promote:

Racism (birtherism, anti-immigrant sentiment, White Nationalism and Supremacy, etc.)
Intolerance (Islamophobia, Christian fundamentalism and privilege, homophobia, anti-transgender bathroom bills, etc.)
Sexism (acceptance of sexual assault, pedophilia, male chauvinism, etc.)
Greed (cutting taxes for the wealthy and rich corporations while not funding CHIP, and threatening to end Obamacare with no replacement, cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy)

These last items are MORAL issues; they are about right and wrong in the sense of harming or helping actual people directly. A morality that is divorced from actual harm or well being of persons is a useless morality even if it is claimed it is the supposed "word of god." Acceptance of obvious harm to many others in the name of a dogmatic belief (such as religion, tradition, dogma or "free markets") is USELESS.

And here is the embodiment of the moral rot that is at the core of the tribalism in the U.S.: former senatorial candidate Roy Moore, supported and endorsed by the Republican Party and the President as well. He stands for every immoral position listed above and he was the candidate of the extreme right, the Republican party and the President. I can forgive economic wrong-headedness, but the immorality of Roy Moore and those who supported him is unforgivable and cannot be reconciled with people of good will. This tribe of moral indecency MUST be opposed.

This leaves us to ponder our options for the future; we must consider working with all those who support moral decency even if their economic policies are not ideal or are even what we consider "wrong." We must now have a "Coalition of Decency" and work of people of good will with opposing views on non-moral issues. We cannot afford to lose otherwise.

The origin of "trickle down" economics apparently
was a joke by Will Rogers many years ago. But nothing is too crazy that a lot
of people won't believe it anyway.

Bottom line: if you want economic growth, more money to the
wealthy is NOT the answer - they tend to hoard their money and spend less of
their earnings than the non-wealthy. Instead, more money and net income to
lower income persons who spend most of their income will increase demand for
goods and motivate businesses to expand. Duh!

The "anti-Trump" texts sent between FBI agents were released in December 2017 to lawmakers and the shocking thing about them is that THEY ARE NOT SHOCKING AT ALL!

They are certainly less shocking than the chants of "lock her up" encouraged by the so-called President's former NSA director. They are less shocking than a million things said by congresspersons who were supposed to "objectively" investigate the Benghazi nothingburger or the Clinton email server nothingburger. They investigated and found nothing - but they sure said a lot!

The "anti-Trump" texts are actually indicative of what an OBJECTIVE PERSON would feel about a person running for the highest office in the country or in the highest office in the country who was a) a lying racist birther b) a lying candidate who spread vicious lies about his competitors (such as Lying Ted Cruz's father helped assassinate JFK b) was bigoted against Muslims as per his proposed Muslim ban d) bragged about groping and sexually assaulting women and invading the privacy of teenage beauty contest contestants e) insults and provokes a fellow loathsome idiot with nuclear weapons named Kim Jong Un, f) lies all the time and g) other items too numerous to mention. None of this is in dispute.

Yes, objectively, the so-called President IS loathsome; objectively he IS an idiot; objectively his presidency IS terrifying. Anyone who does not see this is NOT objective or fair.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

The so-called President's Chief of Staff, General John Kelly is
not what we have been told he is. We have been told he is the
"grown-up" in the room and that he stood between the so-called
President and chaos. He is not the "gown-up" in the room. He has become
just another alternative fact machine that works in the White House.

The so-called President began this episode when he was asked
about the incident in Niger that led to the death of 4 U.S. soldiers. He failed
to explain the incident and instead chose to attack previous presidents who, he
claimed, failed to call the families of fallen soldiers, while he claimed to
have called "virtually" all the families, an issue he was NOT asked
about. The so-called President's claim about the other presidents was a lie and
so was his claim about his calling the families himself. This lying is
something we have come to expect of this so-called President as is his
immediate politicization of an important issue while at the same time accusing
his critics of the politicization!http://time.com/4984507/donald-trump-mitch-mcconnell-rose-garden-press-conference/

The so-called President sent General Kelly the next day to a
press conference to do his dirty work where, to deflect from the fact that he
basically was confirming Rep. Wilson's version of the call, he retold the story
of Rep. Wilson behaving poorly at a building dedication years before where she
took credit for the funding of the building:

"“A congresswoman stood up, and in a long tradition of empty
barrels making the most noise, stood up there in all of that and talked about
how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she
took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up
President Obama, and on that phone call, he gave the money – the $20 million –
to build the building, and she sat down, and we were stunned,” Kelly said
during his extraordinary press conference.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rep-frederica-wilson-calls-chief-staff-john-kelly-liar-article-1.3576513

All of the above retelling was UNTRUE. Please take note that General Kelly
mentioned that she "stood up there" presumably to make her speech and
"she sat down and we were stunned" when she ended her speech. Please
note on the actual video of the actual event, she never mentioned the $20million,
and that she received a STANDING OVATION after her very appropriate and
professional speech in which she was magnanimous to the FBI, Republican Rep. John
Boehner and Republican Senator Marco Rubio.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-reg-wilson-kelly-tape-of-speech-20171020-story.html

Friday, October 20, 2017

The so-called President claims President Obama did not call
the families of fallen soldiers and implied that he did not call Gen. John
Kelly when his son was killed in Afghanistan.

A few things about this:

First, no one had asked the so-called President whether HE
had called the families of fallen soldiers. HE instigated this politicization
of this issue ALL BY HIMSELF when he failed to answer a question about what had
happened in Niger and instead chose to falsely bash previous previous
presidents for not calling such families. ( http://time.com/4984507/donald-trump-mitch-mcconnell-rose-garden-press-conference/
)

Third, President Obama, may not have directly called Gen.
Kelly, "but a person familiar with the breakfast for Gold Star Families at
the White House on May 30, 2011, told NBC News that Kelly and his wife attended
the private event and were seated at first lady Michelle Obama’s table."
(NBC News, below)

OK, maybe they did not speak on the phone but they did have
breakfast at an event specifically for the families of fallen soldiers. Gen.
Kelly sat at Michelle Obama's table.

*The so-called President was asked, in a press conference,
about the deaths of 4 soldiers in Niger a few weeks ago. The question was asked
because most Americans did not know that U.S. soldiers were in harm's way in
Niger.

Here is the actual ENTIRE question: "Why haven't we heard anything from you so far about the soldiers
that were killed in Niger? What do you have o say about (OFF-MIKE)?"

PLEASE NOTE that the question did not include any query about whether he had called the families. In fact, he did not answer the actual
question which was a question about the situation that led to the deaths of the
soldiers or the situation in Niger itself with which most Americans were not
aware of.

But now look at part of the so-called President's answer
which he volunteered without being asked: "...if
you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make
calls. A lot of them didn't make calls. I like to call when it's appropriate,
when I think I am able to do it."

It was the so-called President who IMMEDIATELY politicized
the situation. No one had asked about whether he had called the families but he
got defensive anyway. This defensive reaction is a part of his unfitness.

But it gets worse. He does finally eventually call the wife
of one of the fallen soldiers, LaDavid Johnson's wife, Myeshia Manual. "In the call, Trump told her, “He
must have known what he signed up for,” according to an account of Rep.
Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.), who was riding in a limousine with the soldier’s
family when the president called and heard the conversation on speakerphone.
Wilson said Trump’s comments made the young woman cry...When she actually hung
up the phone, she looked at me and said, ‘He
didn’t even know his name.’ That’s the worst part,” Wilson said Wednesday
on CNN’s “New Day...”

OK, anyone can have a tough day, and perhaps the so-called
President had North Korea on his mind. But wait! There's more! He needs to put
his signature on this story - BY LYING!

From WAPO: "Trump
pushed back in an early-morning tweet Wednesday, saying Wilson “totally
fabricated” her account of the phone call — and that he has proof... I didn’t
say what that congresswoman said; didn’t say it all. She knows it,” Trump
said when asked about the exchange by a reporter.

"(Rep.) Wilson, who met Johnson while running a
mentoring program for black youths in Miami, stood by her statement, saying she
was not the only person who heard the call. In a Facebook message to The
Washington Post, Cowanda Jones-Johnson (the mother of the fallen solider) said
that she, too, was in the limousine, and that (Rep.) Wilson’s account of the
conversation was accurate.

President Trump did disrespect my son and
my daughter and also me and my husband,” Jones-Johnson said."

Though he ignored the death of the 4 soldiers in Niger for
days and days, saying nothing, when he was finally asked about it he chose,
instead to bash President Obama; and then lie about what he said when he
finally did call the family of one of the soldiers. But this does not stop the
hypocrite-in-chief and his supporters from bashing football players who protest
racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem. Some patriot!

The so-called President is unfit for the office of President
of the United States.

Those damn liberals! They are spreading the fake news that
the President is unfit for the office!

Oh wait!

These are Republicans saying this! Is there some sort of
pattern here? Is this "fake news?" Or is there some reason why even
people in his own party and nearly everyone outside of his party believe the
so-called President is unfit for the office?

Hillary therefore beats Ms. Conway's record for assigning
blame to a sexual assaulter by about 1 year.

"After the (Access Hollywood) tape leaked, Conway
supported Trump’s excuse that this was just locker room talk and said Trump has
always been “gracious and a gentleman... After millions of women marched to
protest Trump’s inauguration last month, Conway told ABC News that she “didn’t
see the point.”" (Huff Post)

Here is the scoring update: Hillary Clinton, no longer in
office or working for the government, condemns Weinstein, a former donor, in 5
days; Kellyanne Conway, 1 year after the Hollywood Video came out is still an
adviser to her friend, the so-called President who bragged about sexually
assaulting women and who has had a dozen women confirm the assaults. She just called the tape "locker room
talk" and obviously is ignoring the actual claims of assault. Yeah, but Hillary…

Excuse me for trying to simplify things - Einstein did say
it was a virtue to make things as simple as possible but no simpler. I suspect
that the issue of racism, or racism or white nationalism, bias, and bigotry,
etc. is being over-analyzed. It is likely that natural selection has selected a
trait in humans that leads to tribalism (which benefited tribes and therefore
assisted the survival of those tribal members) and it is a powerful trait in
some of us and less so in others. This trait also does not have to be based on
skin color, but could be based on other physical attributes, gender or even
non-physical belief systems.

I remember watching a documentary on TV about a fellow
(African in ethnicity but light skinned and who could pass for white) who could
get brown-eyed people all worked up against blue-eyed persons in his seminars
in a matter of minutes. The audiences did not seem to realize they were being
manipulated to be against the blue-eyed people. They were ready to persecute
the blue eyed people even though their own "ethnicity" varied from
European, African to Asian, etc.. They united against the "blue
eyes." It was easy.

Here is my point; us humans are often largely irrational. We
are largely idiots. We are subject to impulses that may have been useful in
some way in the past in order to survive but are useful no longer. Once upon a time, if an individual’s “tribe”
was more likely to survive, the individual was more likely to survive as
well. We therefore became tribal in behavior. We began to be biased towards the traits of those in our "tribe." Now, however, the world has shrunk
– we are pretty much now all in the same tribe. Tribal behavior can be dangerous in this world.

The struggle is to behave rationally and with concern for
others. This is no easy thing. We often fail. It could be anyone one of us at
one time or another. We need to continually question our beliefs and behaviors
to make sure they are rational and compassionate.

There was another march in Charlottesville by White
Nationalists last night. Here are two observations:

1) There was no Antifa or other organized militant counter
demonstrators. As a result, the only thing there is to talk about is how
idiotic, disgusting and awful the White Nationalists were, in my opinion. This
is a good thing. The White Nationalists want nothing more than some unhinged
counter protesters to be there and look bad. That is the only way they can look
good.

2) Instead of mentioning how awful the White Nationalists
were, the so-called President tweeted the following after sending VP Mike Pence
to a NFL football game, who promptly left after some payers knelt during the
National Anthem, the next day: "I asked @VP Pence to leave stadium if any
players kneeled, disrespecting our country. I am proud of him and @SecondLady
Karen."

Yes, the so-called President ignores the White Nationalist
march but calls out the football players for putting the spotlight on unequal
treatment of minorities by law enforcement. We understand, but unfortunately,
so does his base.

It seems as though, day by day, the current administration
is finding new ways to be cruel to "outsiders." Minorities,
Hispanics, Muslims, women, and of course, the current favorite whipping horse
and those least likely to cause harm to others - transgender Americans. There
is no reason to make their lives demonstrably worse except for petty revenge
and viciousness. Revenge against whom? The answer, of course, is revenge
against those who simply oppose the so-called President and the method of
revenge is simply to do whatever will cause them pain or pain to those they
support - in this case transgender Americans.

What good will the removal of protections against
discrimination for transgender persons do for anyone? It will do zero good for
anyone but except for those with ignorant hate in their hearts and much harm to
a group of people who struggle every day with their sexual identity through no
fault of their own. For the so-called President, the misery this will cause is
no problem.

The U.S. joined Saudi Arabia in voting AGAINST a UN
resolution condemning the death penalty for gay sex, blasphemy, adultery and
other taboos. Of course, although, for example, adultery is not a particularly
admirable behavior, the penalties are more likely to be imposed against women
or other targeted individuals. Of course blasphemy is aimed at believers of the
non-preferred religions or non-believers and is not a moral wrong in any way.
EVERYONE is a blasphemer in the eyes of someone else after all. As far as death
for gay sex - is this a crumb thrown to the likes of supporters of Republican
Senate nominee Roy Moore?

Can you imagine the endless investigations Republicans would
be having if Obama was President and Hillary Clinton was still Sec. of State?

This is far more egregious than Benghazi; a Navy Seal died,
10 children as well, and it was instigated in order to make the so-called
President look bolder than Obama. Even after the U.S. realized that the element
of surprise was lost and secrecy had been compromised, they decided to continue
the mission. A complete disgrace. In one month the so-called President managed
to screw up worse than Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton in 8 years - for no reason
other than to try to make himself look good.

The article below contains interviews with some Antifa
members. It is hard to believe that they can be this stupid. One of the main
objections to fascism is their animus towards free speech. This is what an
Antifa members says:

“We don’t think fascism deserves free speech,” Bonnie said.
“You give a platform to fascism, they will kill you. We want to shut that down
before we get killed.”

Of course, this corresponds exactly to what a fascist would
DO to the free speech rights of their opponents (although they would publicly
deny such an intent) and it is completely lost on this fool. Someone should
tell Antifa that the First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. You
cannot convict or accuse others of a crime in advance of the crime as well.

The two sides are not equivalent; Hitler, Mussolini were
fascists. Almost nothing compares to them. Antifa, in a country where the
police in Berkeley, for example, are NOT tools of the fascists, only get in the
way of justice and in fact, give actual fascists some cover when the fascists
then generalize about their opposition. The tactic that will be used by White
Nationalists, the KKK, neo-Nazis and others will be to paint all their
opponents as free speech haters such as Antifa. And it will work to a large
degree.

Should someone be fired if they brag about sexually
assaulting women? Is it worse to kneel during the National Anthem to bring
attention to the disparity of the use of force by police against minorities or
to brag about sexually assaulting women?

Should someone be fired if they mock a disabled person for
their disability? Is it worse to kneel during the National Anthem to bring
attention to the disparity of the use of force by police against minorities or
to mock a disabled person for their disability?

Should someone be fired if they insult an American who was a
prisoner of war for being captured? Is it worse to kneel during the National
Anthem to bring attention to the disparity of the use of force by police
against minorities or to insult an American who was a prisoner of war for being
captured?

Should someone be fired if they insult the family of an
American killed in service to their country? Is it worse to kneel during the
National Anthem to bring attention to the disparity of the use of force by
police against minorities or to insult the family of an American killed in
service to their country?

Rep. Massie is a Republican libertarian from Kentucky. In an
interview earlier this year, he reflected that voters may not have been as
motivated to vote for him for his libertarianism as much as for he being the
craziest SOB in the race.

If he is right, and he probably is to a degree, this would
explain to some degree the victory of Roy Moore for the Republican nomination
for the Senate in Alabama who, without a doubt, would be the craziest SOB in
all of Congress and that is saying a lot. This also says all quite a bit about
certain voters - if this is true. In some circles, insanity is favored over
sanity. This is not a joke. In Alabama, Republicans have nominated a person who just may favor executing gays, stoning women who are not virgins when they get married
and who believes government should enforce Christianity.

Republicans nominate Roy Moore for the senate in Alabama:
the Taliban is HERE! This is not a joke. Alabama, you cannot elect this guy.
The support that Steve Bannon gave him is disgraceful even for Steve Bannon.
And if the so-called President supports him, it's more disgrace upon a mountain
of disgrace.

From Esquire: "And, not for nothing, but Moore’s
opponent is a guy named Douglas Jones. In 2001, Jones convicted two men for the
bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963, one of the
iconic white supremacist terrorist acts of that period. One of those bastards
already died in prison and the other keeps getting denied parole. If you’d
rather be represented in the Senate by a lawless theocratic lunatic, rather
than a guy that finally got justice for four murdered little girls, well, you
deserve anything that goddamn happens to you."

The Republicans have nominated the closest thing to a member
of the Taliban for the senate in Alabama, former Judge Roy Moore. He was NOT
the candidate of the "Swamp" (also known as the Republic
establishment.) No, this is the "answer" to the "Swamp" and
was supported by the likes of Steve Bannon and Sarah Palin; Senate majority
leader Mitch McConnell supported Moore's opponent Luther Strange, the current
senator, who lost the nomination. Here is what I am trying to say: the voters
of the Republican Party are even more deplorable than their leadership, which
is saying a lot! Would anyone say that voting for a candidate who cannot bring
himself to oppose the execution of gay persons is not deplorable?

It is DEPLORABLE to cast a vote for Judge Roy Moore. A
majority of Republicans in Alabama voted for Roy Moore. You do the math.

Where does the so-called President stand on this? During the
campaign for the nomination, he endorsed Luther Strange, who had been very
loyal to the so-called President, maybe even perfectly loyal. But here's the
amazing thing; while most other Republicans leaders will be fleeing Roy Moore,
I suspect that the so-called President will embrace Roy Moore, because Roy
Moore loves the so-called President. That is all the so-called President will
need to know.

You could argue that by firing these players, the NFL would
be exercising their right to free speech. Perhaps. But the point is
"political correctness." The reason they would be firing and
suspending players would be over a "political correctness" encouraged
by the so-called President. If the players were saying "Make America Great
Again" the so-called President wouldn't be tweeting.

What could be more politically correct than this? What is
more chilling to free speech than the so-called President calling for people
who defy his version of "political correctness" to be fired or
suspended. This is the definition of political correctness. Duh.

A lot of people take exception to candidate Hillary
Clinton's description of many of the so-called President's supporters are "deplorable."
As a political tactic, it was a mistake. As far as accuracy, I present the
following.

In Alabama, two Republicans are fighting for the nomination
to run for the U.S. Senate, and since this is a very "red" state, the
winner of the nomination is very likely to win the election. What is
interesting is that BOTH candidates are ardent supporters of the so-called
President. THEY ARE ARGUING BETWEEN EACH OTHER ABOUT WHO SUPPORTS THE
PRESIDENT THE MOST. The candidate that the so-called President did NOT endorse,
Roy Moore, however, is something akin to the American Taliban, and the Taliban
are almost, but not quite, owed an apology for this comparison. Yet, the
American pseudo Talibaner is ahead in the polls.

Why? He appeals to the most "deplorable" instincts
in Alabama's Republican voters apparently. Is this right?

From Huffington Post: "In February, several months
after being suspended from court for defying federal orders on same-sex
marriage, Moore appeared on the radio show of a pastor who has claimed the
Bible calls for the death penalty for gay people. He’d appeared on pastor Kevin
Swanson’s program several times over the years, and there was a clear affinity
between the men who believe they are two lone crusaders for Christ. Moore
lamented to Swanson: “Our problem today is we’re denying that there is even a
God or that he has sovereignty over our country.”

When the pastor asked him: “What does one do when God’s laws
conflict with man’s laws?” Moore responded, “God’s laws are always superior to
man’s laws.” It’s an extreme view that would put an elected judge far outside
the bounds of the legal mainstream: The U.S. government relies on its judicial
branch to maintain checks and balances and uphold the law of the land. But, for
Moore, there’s no contradiction. The Vietnam veteran and lifelong Christian
holds the view that the U.S. Constitution is a kind of extension of the Bible,
and that the Founding Fathers intended their America to be a Christian
nation."

Here is a tidbit about a section of the American public:
"23 percent of Americans still think that same-sex relationships should be
illegal..." (Gallup polls) http://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/.-.-rights.aspx#!mn-topics
. Would these be more likely Clinton supporters or the supporters of the so-called
President.

To get more specific, here are some facts about Alabama:
" Public Policy Polling (PPP) revealed... that 21 percent of likely GOP
voters polled in Alabama believe that interracial marriage should be
illegal."

Sean Spicer made an appearance at the Emmy's where he
claimed that the Emmy's audience was the largest in history, a parallel lie to the lie he told at his first press conference after the inauguration that
the so-called President's inauguration also had the largest audience in
history.

If Spicer had previously publicly apologized and started to
make amends for all the many lies he told while working for the so-called
President, such as by listing all his lies and explaining why they were lies,
and why he told them, I could accept him joking about it at some point. But he
has done none of this yet. He'd better start soon or this was just cynicism and
the joke is still on him.

This is not normal behavior for a President. It is not fit
behavior for a President. Is there any reason anyone should respect this
President when he obviously behaves so disrespectfully towards others?

He brags about sexually assaulting women because he is a
powerful man.

He spreads lies about President Obama place of birth to
legitimize the first black President.

He lied about being wiretapped in Trump Tower.

He lied about seeing thousands of Muslims on roofs celebrating
9-11 to increase prejudice and anger against Muslims.

He lied about millions of people illegally voting for his
opponent to increase mistrust of democracy and legitimize himself in an
election where a foreign government worked to get him elected.

He lied about most Mexican illegal immigrants being rapists
and murderers to increase bigotry against Mexicans.

He called global warming a Chinese hoax to increase
prejudice against the Chinese and environmentalists.

He lied about the size of his inauguration crowd to inflate
his own ego.

He lied about Ted Cruz's father being a part of the
assassination of JFK to help himself get elected.

He constantly spouts fake news (see above) then accuses the
mainstream media of spreading fake news when they point this out, all for the
sake of undermining the ability of Americans to know what the truth is.

He is a lying, crazy ego-maniacal bigot. Is any of the above
false? Are any of the conclusions ridiculous?

I have written this before: the only way that the so-called
President could lose a portion of his base of support is NOT if he shoots
somebody on 5th Avenue; it's if he does something rational and compassionate.

His tentative agreement with Democrats to find a way to
allow DACA kids to stay legally in the U.S. is rational and compassionate but
does not change his mental unfitness. However, it does highlight that many of
his supporters are disgraceful for ignoring his unfitness and embracing his
very worst qualities while actually rejecting best quality - his lack of
political ideology (other than serving himself.)

This, in a nutshell is the whole deal about the so-called
President and his base.

John McCain will not go away quietly. In fact, as he faces
his greatest challenge, he seems more determined to do the right thing as
senator as opposed to doing the thing he would be ideologically be expected to
do.

From the Hill: "Senate Armed Services Committee
Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) is backing a bipartisan bill that would block
President Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military.

“When less than one percent of Americans are volunteering to
join the military, we should welcome all those who are willing and able to
serve our country,” McCain said in a statement.

“Any member of the military who meets the medical and
readiness standards should be allowed to serve — including those who are
transgender," he said."

This article will make your head spin! The son (Yair
Netanyahu) of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently posted on
his Facebook page an image that "appeared to be a local take on a classic
anti-Semitic cartoon suggesting that Jews control the United States. It has
appeared widely on extreme right websites. In this instance, it depicted his
father’s perceived foes: American Jewish billionaire philanthropist and
investor George Soros, outspoken former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak,
activist Eldad Yaniv and Meni Naftali, a former housekeeper for the Netanyahus
who successfully sued them for mistreatment."

This is a classic antisemitic meme, in this case tailored to
attack PM Netanyahu's opponents which include Ehud Barak and other bogeymen
such as George Soros. The fact that it falsely attacks Jews other than
Netanyahu does not change the fact it is a bigoted fake news meme. How can we
be sure of this? David Duke tweeted “Welcome to the club, Yair — absolutely
amazing, wow, just wow.” If it has David Duke's seal of approval, you know it's
wrong. But Duke was restrained compared to the so-called President loving Daily
Stormer: “Yair Netanyahu is a total bro,” Andrew Anglin wrote in the neo-Nazi
Daily Stormer. “Next he’s going to call for gassings.” Read it all in the
article linked below.

Apologists for the extreme right, who typically support the
right wing Netanyahu, will claim that this isn't bigotry - George Soros and his
cronies really DO control the U.S. It's just fact they'll say. Then they'll say
that criticizing Netanyahu is the real antisemitism! Their brains are so
twisted.

What could have lead a 19 year old Israeli to think this
post was OK? Stupidity? His parents influence? Did you know that Israeli police
are readying a criminal indictment of Mrs. Netanyahu for personal corruption?
What a family! I'm sure this was just a terrible misunderstanding. Yeah, right.

The so-called President pardoned Sheriff Arpaio who was
convicted of Contempt of Court. Never mind that birther Arpaio behaved
precisely as a bigot would behave. Never mind that the ex-sheriff was an early
and ardent supporter of the so-called President. Never mind he was totally unapologetic.

Consider this:

What will restrain other law enforcers around the country to
curb their illegal activities if it is an activity the so-called President
supports?

Violate the rights of prisoners? Pardon.

Violate the rights of some minority? Pardon.

Violate any law that the so-called President does not like?
Pardon.

Keep in mind that ex-sheriff Arpaio did not yet have his
appeal of his conviction - he was pardoned in advance of his appeal and
sentencing. The Department of Justice did not have a chance to review the case
for a pardon, which is customary. Why pardon him so soon? Because, in other
words, the system is not to be trusted, according to the so-called President.

This is basically a pass to law enforcement to flout any law
the so-called President does not like - he's got their backs.

It's as if there is no law in the country. The so-called
President is the law.

Our compassionate so-called President signed the directive
to discriminate and stigmatize transgender persons in the military.

It read: "The presidential memorandum also bans the
Department of Defense from using its resources to provide medical treatment
regimens for transgender individuals currently serving in the military."
Trump also directed the departments of Defense and Homeland Security "to
determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving based on
military effectiveness and lethality, unitary cohesion, budgetary constraints,
applicable law, and all factors that may be relevant."

The White House official who briefed reporters on the memo
on Friday evening declined to say whether current transgender troops would be
allowed to remain in the military under those policy guidelines. (From CNN)

The excuse being used was the cost of treating such persons
which has been estimated to be about $5million to $10million per year. This is
equal to about 3 or so trips to Mar A Lago by the so-called President.

This is a small fraction of what it costs to treat erectile
dysfunction, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD and so on in the military which no
one has suggested be withheld. Why is the so-called President doing this?

Here is the answer: the so-called President's motivation is
to satisfy his bigoted base and more importantly PUNISH those who oppose him.
He does not care who gets harmed in pursuit of his revenge.

The so called President has pardoned convicted Sheriff Joe
Arpaio. Arpaio is the sheriff who targeted and racially profiled Hispanics in
Arizona for over a year after being told by courts to stop violating their
rights. He was convicted of contempt.

One of the talking points of the supporters of the so-called
President will be that it was a political prosecution because it was announced
just before the vote for the sheriff's position - which Arpaio then lost.
However this excuse does not explain his actual conviction - he was indeed
guilty.

The key reason for Arpaio's pardon is Arpaio's support for
the so-called President. Arpaio endorsed the so-called President for the
nomination and was a fellow birther; "Trump is likely a fan of Arpaio’s
because Arapio is a fan of his—an early supporter who also went all in for
birtherism, at one point sending members of a so-called Cold Case Posse to
Hawaii to dig up something incriminating about Barack Obama’s birth
certificate..." from the New Yorker.

That's the answer; they both promoted racist theories and
policies - it's that simple.

One of the myths that has already developed about the 2016
election was that the mainstream media somehow tried to help Clinton, or tried
to hurt the so-called President or generally was not fair and objective in
their coverage, with their liberal bias favoring Clinton. To me this is just an
indication of our short memories and the bias against facts that underpin the
beliefs of supporters of the so-called President.

The media, mainstream and fake news alike, helped get the
so-called President elected. They did this by covering his campaign events to
the exclusion of covering the rallies of other candidates. This is too obvious
to dispute.

But they also covered him in a way that they did not cover
the other candidates. His lies, irrationality, ugliness were normalized while
the indiscretions of others were inflated even though the transgressions of the
so-called President were magnitudes greater. He called other candidates
"lying Ted Cruz", "little Marco", "crooked
Hillary," and worse. He accused them of things we all know he had done
many times over; he lied and insulted the families of other candidates.

He begged Russia to hack the emails of his opponents.

This is not a biased memory - it is fact. No other candidate
in the history of the country got as many breaks and as much coverage and as
much a second chance to display some competence, humanity and decency. He never
showed any.

If the press were fair they would have ALWAYS noted he was a
liar, a bigot, a misogynist and ignorant.That would have been fair and
objective. By not doing so, they gave him a break that they gave no one else.
Studies are coming out that support the obvious. Please read:

One of the things supporters of the so-called President are
saying, and that he said at his rally, is that he criticized hate groups like
the KKK and neo-Nazis in his statements. They overlook his waffling in other
parts of his statements of course, but they point to some things he said and
claim it means he is not a bigot.

But what do the actual bigots really think?

Washington Post: "Less than a half-hour after Trump’s
live remarks, the Daily Stormer had declared the president’s words as a signal
of tacit support for their side: 'Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack
us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us.'

And David Duke - he GUSHED over the so-called President!

So here is what the supporters are saying; "we don't
care if the KKK and neo-Nazis feel that the so-called President supported them
or feel that he has their backs. We believe whatever the so-called President
tells us..."

There is increasing talk about the possibility of the
so-called President suffering from some form of dementia. A lot of people
criticize those who raise this question, especially since the conclusions are
not based on in-person examinations. But there is no blood test for dementia,
nor is there an X-Ray or MRI that would reveal the condition. It would all be
based on observation - something we all can do from afar. The biggest and most
justifiable objection to suggesting dementia is the emotional response many
have to this president, and that this emotion may cloud someone's judgment.

But there ARE some markers for dementia. Memory,
irrationality, impaired judgment, etc. These are things that make dementia the
problem it is.

The article below is from February this year and refers to
many things he has done and said in the past. It's scary.

The so-called President's visit to Phoenix may be partially
intended to goad protesters into committing violence - and unfortunately there
could be some protesters who may fall into the trap. If he pardons Sheriff Joe
Arpaio he will of course be excusing someone who goes out of his way to
persecute the Hispanic community. The so-called President's base would love it.

But the temptation to disrupt rallies of those you disagree
with and even of those you believe are racist or otherwise immoral must be
resisted - always and by everyone.

There is a narrative that the so-called President is trying
to create - the narrative that his opponents want to destroy everyone's free
speech and enforce a political correctness on everyone. Never mind that that
the so-called President wants to force everyone to say "Merry Christmas,
" wants no Muslims or Hispanics to enter the country, enjoys the support
of White Nationalists and worse; it's the LEFT that threatens our freedom!
Never mind that his primary opposition in the past election, Hillary Clinton
and her supporters are the most middle of the road politically in the country -
they will get lumped in with anarchists and whatever left wing group that gets
violence.

Since his supporters are lo-info, all he needs are a handful
of idiots to allow him to smear the entire opposition - and make it stick with
many. Unfortunately there is never a shortage of idiots within any group.

This is the plan of the so-called President - goading some
tiny fraction of his opponents into disrupting and possibly even attacking his
supporters with his "dog whistles." All he cares about is winning
even if it ruins the country.

There is nothing so dumb that it would prevent many people
from believing it. Someone actually thinks it is "plausible" that
"liberals" staged the violence and it was funded by George Soros to
boot! Yup, he's an elected official.

Never mind that White Nationalists promoted the event which
included David Duke as a speaker and the car-driving accused killer was known
Nazi sympathizer. It was really the "liberals." Somehow they made the
White Nationalists do it and kill one of the counter-protesters.

From AOL news: "(Idaho State Rep.) Bryan Zollinger, who serves the
state’s 33rd District, took to Facebook over the weekend and shared an article
that suggests a cabal of liberals may have staged the conflict to “smear”
President Trump."

Here is a post from a fellow who took exception to criticism
of the alt-right White Nationalist rally in Charlottesville. Here is what he
wrote on Facebook:

"The extreme racist who started the war in 1860 was
Lincoln. He invaded the nation of the Confederate States of America with the
sole purpose of keeping the tariffs and other taxes flowing from the South to
the North and to make sure that the South had to keep buying expensive Northern
products instead of cheaper imported ones. Every descendant of slaves today
should get down on their knees and thank God that their ancestor was put on
that boat. Blacks in America live better than any nation in Africa. You do
realize that the first slave owner in the British colonies was a black man? You
do realize that it was Yankee ships that brought slaves to the US? Or are you a
total historical illiterate? You do realize that slavery is still practice in
Muslim nations?"

Please note after excusing slavery throughout his paragraph
and criticizing Lincoln as a racist for imposing tariffs(?), he then slams
Muslims for still having slavery in some countries as if that was a terrible injustice
all of a sudden.

This is certainly not the first time someone has told me
that the slaves and their descendants should be thankful; the other times it
was for being indoctrinated into Christianity.

Yes and the White Nationalist rally in Charlottesville was
about free speech. It actually was for crazy speech.

AntiFa is going to be a problem in opposing the so-called
President. This group will be the convenient and easy excuse for him to justify
selective crackdowns and moral equivalencies. Please note that AntiFa assumes
in advance that their opponents are violent - in other words their opponents,
they assume, typically the alt-right or worse, have ALREADY been violent and
deserve a physical confrontation.

Now I understand that the KKK and neo-Nazis actually exist
to HARM others and that AntiFa claims to exist to DEFEND, but that defense is
not guaranteed to be within the bounds of legality if their definition of
defense is to "disrupt" alt-right rallies for example.

Of course, all this is EXACTLY what the alt-right wants them
to do so that they can say that the left wing is the real danger to the US.
This scenario is not unlike Al Qaeda hoping the the US would attack in Iraq so
that they could promote the narrative of the US being at war with Islam. And
AntiFa will deliver in this case to the alt-right. Let's not encourage this
movement.

The alt-right loves to make claims that "liberals"
like President Obama plant "false flags" - in other words, create
incidents to make the right wingers look bad, like the Newtown Massacre where
over 20 children were gunned down by a mentally ill person with a high powered
automatic weapon. The 'liberals" created this incident, they say, to
promote gun control. Seriously! And they believe it.

But here is a story that may be a true "false
flag" where a supporter of the so-called President carried a "Rape
Melania" sign among neo-Nazi counter protesters in order to smear the
counter protesters. Disgusting. But the so-called President defends the
alt-right neo-Nazis and calls out the counter protesters. Sick and disgusting.

Was the so-called President's father involved with the KKK?
According to a copy of an old New York Times article in 1927, Fred Trump was
arrested in conjunction with a riot between the police and the KKK in New York
and a person arrested most likely was indeed Fred Trump, father of Donald.

More details are lost to history but there is more evidence
that Fred Trump was a KKK sympathizer than Ted Cruz's father helped kill JFK, a
meme that the so-called President promoted in the campaign.

Today the so-called President compared George Washington and
Thomas Jefferson to Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Is he right or wrong
to do so?

Is it fair to compare two of the country's founding fathers,
who owned slaves, to Confederates who attempted to destroy America and preserve
slavery through violent means?

Is the so-called President right in that all of these men
are equally bad? Is there a moral equivalence between George Washington and
Robert E. Lee?

I don't think so. We now understand, centuries later, that
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not perfect men. They did not have a
complete vision of freedom. They did, however, advance the cause of freedom,
albeit very imperfectly. But please remember that slavery existed before they
did and that the United States was a revolutionary experiment in freedom that,
to this day, still needs improvements.

Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, however, stood opposed
to the advancement of freedom. They believed deeply in slavery. They were
deeply racist and had not progressed as others did in the decades after
Washington and Jefferson. They had a choice to make that Washington and
Jefferson were never confronted with - go to war over slavery or end slavery
and preserve the Union. They chose war and slavery. It is very possible that
Washington and Jefferson would have decided otherwise if given the opportunity.
We can never know.

We do know this: if there is any common-sense definition of
treason, Lee and Jackson fit it perfectly; and all for the cause of slavery.
The so-called President ignores this or embraces this; he is mentally unfit for
the job.

Where does White Nationalism come from? The answer is
complex and the sources of ideas for it are many, varied and not all of them
are related to each other. But at least some of the rationale comes from
religion.

6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite
woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while
they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

7 When Phinehas son
of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took
a spear in his hand

8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the
spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s
stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped;

9 but those who
died in the plague numbered 24,000.

10 The Lord said to Moses,

11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the
son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since
he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them
in my zeal.

12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him.

13
He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he
was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.”

Some will say that the so-called President is clever by
starting this culture war against transgender persons in the military. Many
Americans, as ignorant as the so-called President himself, will see merit in
this policy and will actually believe that transgenders will pose some kind of
risk and expense to the armed services. However the cost of treating
transgender persons is estimated to be under $10,000,000 per year - basically
the cost of a few of weekends at Mar-a -Lago - and less of an expense than the
loss of the experience and training those persons represent. Do we need to
mention the ingratitude shown to those who have volunteered for their country
this would represent?

Persons who ultimately require a gender confirmation surgery
are rare; it is not something you look forward to having. For those who need
the surgery, it is their only path to peace of mind. There is no reason to deny
them treatment any more than denying a person treatment for post-traumatic
stress syndrome.

In the short run there may be some gain for the President.
In the long run it will be a total loss for the country. This is just another
disgrace by the so-called President.

John McCain calls the ban "inappropriate" and
cites both the process (there was none) and the substance as the as the
Department of Defense “has already decided to allow currently-serving
transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably
today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be
allowed to continue serving.”

Not all of us worship a god. But even more, would the
so-called President concede that "Allah" is a god, or
"Yahweh" or "Zeus" or "Shiva". I doubt it. Only
the so-called President's god is a "real" god to the so-called
President and I would guess it would be a god that has nothing but praise for the so-called President.